• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul and racism

phattonez said:
No! Segregation by the government is bad and should be illegal. Rand Paul made this point. Segregation by private businesses? Well that corrects itself.
Click to expand...

No. No it doesn't correct itself.
 
Deuce said:
No. No it doesn't correct itself.
Click to expand...

The company that segregates sees a smaller consumer base and less business from those that are disgusted by segregation. So the only reason it went on back then was that the majority was fine with it. But the first effect was happening as blacks migrated away from the South in huge numbers. Response?
 
phattonez said:
No! Segregation by the government is bad and should be illegal. Rand Paul made this point. Segregation by private businesses? Well that corrects itself.
Click to expand...

But you're saying that the correction was a mass migration of one race. How is that an acceptable market solution?

If a Realtor in a small town refuses to sell to blacks, is that okay too? What if no Realtor in town wants to sell to blacks?

Are blacks then supposed to simply wait it out until the market fixes it and commute from another town until such time?
 
FilmFestGuy said:
But you're saying that the correction was a mass migration of one race. How is that an acceptable market solution?
Click to expand...

It would force them to change in the South unless they wanted to see their clientele continue to migrate away.

If a Realtor in a small town refuses to sell to blacks, is that okay too? What if no Realtor in town wants to sell to blacks?
Click to expand...

Then that town will see a lot of lost business.

Are blacks then supposed to simply wait it out until the market fixes it and commute from another town until such time?
Click to expand...

Do what Martin Luther King did and change the minds of people. That is what eventually changed things. That is why, even without the Civil Rights Act, we would see very little segregation.
 
phattonez said:
It would force them to change in the South unless they wanted to see their clientele continue to migrate away.

Then that town will see a lot of lost business.

Do what Martin Luther King did and change the minds of people. That is what eventually changed things. That is why, even without the Civil Rights Act, we would see very little segregation.
Click to expand...

He changed their minds so they would vote in the Civil Rights Act of 1964!!!!!!!

The entire gist of his movement was equal participation in government and society and the major crux of what he fought for. Are you familiar with the March on Washington for Freedom and Jobs? It was primarily to rally support for the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. It's where the "I Have a Dream" speech came from. That speech (and Kennedy's assassination) got the bill passed.

How can you not know that?

It becomes very hard to argue when you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of history. Everything King fought and DIED for was in that act.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
He changed their minds so they would vote in the Civil Rights Act of 1964!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'm trying to say though that the act wasn't necessary except for the fact that it outlawed Jim Crow laws. Economics wouldn't have taken care of the Jim Crow laws (which mandated segregation for private businesses by the way), but they would have taken care of voluntary segregation.

The entire gist of his movement was equal participation in government and society and the major crux of what he fought for. Are you familiar with the March on Washington for Freedom and Jobs? It was primarily to rally support for the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. It's where the "I Have a Dream" speech came from. That speech (and Kennedy's assassination) got the bill passed.
Click to expand...

And I agree with the part that made Jim Crow Laws illegal.
 
phattonez said:
The company that segregates sees a smaller consumer base and less business from those that are disgusted by segregation. So the only reason it went on back then was that the majority was fine with it. But the first effect was happening as blacks migrated away from the South in huge numbers. Response?
Click to expand...

Except the south stayed segregated until they were forced to stop.
 
Deuce said:
Except the south stayed segregated until they were forced to stop.
Click to expand...

Phattonez isn't suggesting that racism and segregation would have completely gone away at that instant. He's saying that many people were heading in the direction of civil rights, even in the South, and private segregation would sort itself out. Besides, it's not like discrimination ended in 1964 either.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Phattonez isn't suggesting that racism and segregation would have completely gone away at that instant. He's saying that many people were heading in the direction of civil rights, even in the South, and private segregation would sort itself out. Besides, it's not like discrimination ended in 1964 either.
Click to expand...

Actually I disagree that private segregation would have gone away on its own. Reduced, maybe, but not disappeared. History shows that people go with the status quo, even if they disagree. White people in the south still went to whites-only restaurants even if they were against segregation. Black people being poorer as a whole, it wasn't a huge hit to lose them as customers.

Discrimination didn't end, of course not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do whatever we can to keep it down. This view on property rights strikes me as people caring more about a vague principle than caring about actual people. You know, the people who would be discriminated against. Do you agree that discrimination harms people?
 
Of course it harms people, but the amount that would have stayed was irrelevant. We saw so much segregation not because it was economically viable, but because Jim Crow Laws made businesses do it.
 
Deuce said:
Actually I disagree that private segregation would have gone away on its own. Reduced, maybe, but not disappeared. History shows that people go with the status quo, even if they disagree. White people in the south still went to whites-only restaurants even if they were against segregation. Black people being poorer as a whole, it wasn't a huge hit to lose them as customers.
Click to expand...

Case in point. Look at how segregated churches still are. I do not believe that people who go to church are inherently racist, but it is still happening for almost no apparent reason.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats simply not true. theatres and malls routinely post their own version of rules...for example...it is constitutional to own and carry a firearm...yet in virtually every theatre you see they post signs declaring their right to refuse to serve you should you be in possession of a firearm, legal or not.
Click to expand...

There is a crucial difference here. You can leave your gun at home when you go to the theatre. You can't do that with your skin colour.
 
Regicollis said:
There is a crucial difference here. You can leave your gun at home when you go to the theatre. You can't do that with your skin colour.
Click to expand...

I wonder just how many times this false equivalency has to be shot down before those using dog whistle politics stop using it.

I also note, that the simple, straight forward question I asked as to exactly which "talking heads" had called Ran Paul "a racist" remains unanswered.

And we're supposed to take this "Tea Party" seriously?
 
The Uncola said:
I wonder just how many times this false equivalency has to be shot down before those using dog whistle politics stop using it.

I also note, that the simple, straight forward question I asked as to exactly which "talking heads" had called Ran Paul "a racist" remains unanswered.

And we're supposed to take this "Tea Party" seriously?
Click to expand...

Other favorites are the absurd extrapolations. "This is government interference. If you support this you support communism!"
 
Building up straw men is so easy.
 
Deuce said:
Discrimination didn't end, of course not. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do whatever we can to keep it down. This view on property rights strikes me as people caring more about a vague principle than caring about actual people. You know, the people who would be discriminated against. Do you agree that discrimination harms people?
Click to expand...

The vague principal is ultimately based on caring about people's rights. Which means caring about them.
 
Deuce said:
Caring about people's right to.... discriminate.
Click to expand...

No caring about self-ownership and owning one's property. I hate flag-burning, but I wouldn't restrict their right to do so. Same thing goes with the KKK. With freedom you take the good with the bad.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
No caring about self-ownership and owning one's property. I hate flag-burning, but I wouldn't restrict their right to do so. Same thing goes with the KKK. With freedom you take the good with the bad.
Click to expand...

I think in this case, civil rights trump self ownership and property.
 
And why should they trump property rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom